With due respect to all the other Oscar nominees this year, Fassbender deserves adulation for getting through stanzas of intricate, chatty dialogue alone. In particular, Fassbender's performance is a striking accomplishment of restraint merged seamlessly with command, as he portrays Jobs as a charming, amiable, and engrossing person in one scene, and a conflicted, revolting, contemptuous monster in the next. Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet create all the drama, intensity, conflict, and dynamism required to propel Aaron Sorkin's minimalist screenplay into grander terrain, but the film is simultaneously inspiring and frustrating, much like the individual it's based on. But that insight feels incomplete and unrefined at various points in the film, because Sorkin's (usually impeccable) writing keeps treading into theatrical, garrulous, and, dare I say, even self-indulgent territory to metamorphose into a truly involving experience. Set backstage at three iconic product launches and ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac, "Steve Jobs" takes us behind the scenes of Apple's digital revolution to paint an intimate portrait of its cofounder.Īaron Sorkin's screenplay and Danny Boyle's Direction offers a Steve Jobs profile that doesn't idolize or criticize him, providing us valuable insight to the man's life and other important individuals who impacted it. Though it'll undoubtedly have a more profound effect on those with a deeper knowledge of Apple's history or who share a fervent relationship with every product the company launches, "Steve Jobs" is nonetheless an affecting piece of cinema that boldly chooses a stark portrayal of the tech giant's late CEO without ever veering into the degradation or canonization of its eponymous subject. Reviewed by DareDevilKid 7 / 10 A Job Partially Well Done Nevertheless, my indifference for the Apple products remains. Sometimes, the fragments of a portrait end up being more interesting than the whole picture. In conclusion, I don't think Steve Jobs works as an apocryphal History lesson about the digital revolution we currently enjoy/suffer however, I found it quite an interesting biopic, not only due to the phenomenal performances and Danny Boyle's elegant direction, but also because of its intentional rejection of the biographical clichés which almost always feel superficial and incomplete. imposing his taste and will on the consumers, even though many years went by before the economic success validated that arrogant attitude. Besides, Steve Jobs precisely captures the ideological separation and fraternal compatibility between Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the adored patron saint of hackers who knew what people wanted. Fortunately, the whole cast makes an exceptional work, transcending those tricks and bringing fluid and absolutely credible performances. Even Jobs himself mentions that (well, the idealized version brilliantly played by Michael Fassbender), but that doesn't excuse the forced narrative juggling of the screenplay. The unusual structure designed by Sorkin requires an excessive chronological manipulation, suggesting the fact that all the personal and labor problems from Jobs exploited (or were solved) in the previous minutes to his famous presentations. As I said, "curious narrative decisions". What screenwriter Aaron Sorkin attempted was capturing the essence of the man and his moment in time, examining his nature through the interaction with friends, relatives and colleagues during three stressful moments. But, does it really offer us a "real" vision of the genuine Steve Jobs? Probably not for that, there are numerous books and documentaries.
According to technology reporters such as John Dvorak and Leo Laporte (both "old school" ones, who personally lived many of the events portrayed in this film), it seems that Steve Jobs is more fiction than reality fortunately, it's a perfectly acted, well written and solidly directed fiction, all of which is conjugated with each other in order to compensate its curious narrative decisions.
0 kommentar(er)
